W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Pointer Lock; deadline Oct 4

From: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:21:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK-EfXn1cY_wviTNyaGigEUkjHFj-6O-G9y6uJkj7eRsTUSj8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3c.org" <public-webapps@w3c.org>
Done,
May user agents apply additional restrictions on entering pointer
lock? [1] created and added to status section of specification.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19297

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/12 8:26 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> This is a Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Lock using the
>> following document as the basis for the LC
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/tip/index.html>.
>>
>> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision
>> to request advancement" for this LCWD. Note the Process Document states the
>> following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD:
>>
>> [[
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>>
>> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
>>
>> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
>> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
>> Draft;
>>
>> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant
>> dependencies with other groups;
>>
>> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these
>> dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is
>> also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical
>> report to later maturity levels.
>> ]]
>>
>> The proposed LC review period is 4 weeks.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to
>> public-webapps@w3.org by October 4 at the latest. Positive response is
>> preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with
>> the proposal.
>
>
> Hi All - given the discussion in the "Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e.
> LC ready?" thread (see f.ex. [1] and follow-ons), it appears we don't yet
> have consensus the spec is ready for LCWD.
>
> As such, I recommend we work toward consensus on the issues raised in this
> thread before proceeding with the LCWD. To help people track the issues
> raised, perhaps it would be helpful to create a related bug [2] (and to add
> a link to [2] in Status of the Document section).
>
> -AB
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0010.html
> [2]
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWG&component=Pointer%20Lock&resolution=---
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 17:22:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:55 GMT